US cases won against paternity fraud
GEORGIA COURT OF APPEALS cases that resulted in vacating paternity judgements.
SMITH v. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, A97A0257., COURT OF APPEALS OF
GEORGIA, May 16, 1997, Decided, "The law should not punish a purported father for failing to insist on a
paternity test when he has no reason to believe that he is not the father."
"Since this is an attempt to set aside a judgment through the mechanism of an extraordinary motion for new
trial, the doctrines of res judicata and estoppel by judgment are inapposite."
"While it is the policy of this state to require fathers to support their minor children, it is
not the policy to extort such support from persons who are not in fact the fathers."
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES v. BROWNING, No. A93A1249, Court of Appeals of
Georgia, October 14, 1993, Decided; "order setting aside the consent judgment, finding that Browning is not the
father of the child and relieving him of further obligation for support of the minor child."
MATTHEWS V. GRACE, 199 Ga. 400, 404 (2), 405 (34 S.E.2d
454);." the practical and historical basis for extending relief via extraordinary motion for new trial where the
same is authorized by the evidence, i.e., "the higher and supreme object of the law which is to do full justice in all
OTHER STATES THAT HAVE CASES THAT PREVAILED AGAINST PATERNITY FRAUD
- Langston v. Locklear, No. 117 September Term, 1999 (Maryland Court of Appeals, June 28, 2000) "…
years after the divorce that he is not the biological father …can be relieved of his child support"
- U.S.A v GLORIA TENEUVIAL WARD, No. , (D.C. No. 97-CR-122-001), (D. Utah)
United States Court Of Appeals. "convicted of two counts of social security , and two
counts of making a false statement to a government agency. Ward filed for child benefits knowing deceased was
not child’s father. RESULTS: sentenced to fifteen months' imprisonment and thirty-six months' supervised
release and ordered to make restitution in the amount of $32,345."
- Wyoming, Department Of Family Services v PAJ and MJA (No. C-96-2) (OCTOBER TERM, A.D.
1996), SUPREME COURT. "… the results of DNA blood testing which excluded PAJ from being the biological father,
the district court set aside its prior adjudication of paternity. We affirm that decision."
- CAMPBELL v. CAMPBELL ,Record No. 0172-97-2, JANUARY 26, 1999, VA Court of Appeals (unpublished)"
"'[p]rinciples of collateral estoppel may not be invoked to sustain fraud.'" Batrouny, 13
Va. App. at 444, 412 S.E.2d at 723 (quoting Slagle v. Slagle, 11 Va. App. 341, 348, 398 S.E.2d 346, 350
(1990))" "we affirm the trial court's termination of the order that husband pay child support to
- Florida Department of Revenue ex rel. R.A.E. v. M.L.S., No. 2D98-3902, District Court of Appeal of
Florida, Second District, (February 18, 2000) After paying child support for 11 years (the minor child
asked the alleged father, Do you know, who my daddy is?) , the order setting aside the final
order of child support was affirmed."A judgment establishing paternity
should not be entered solely on unadmitted and unproven allegations of paternity, but on the basis of
competent, substantial evidence." "The Florida Supreme Court has stated,
" a person has no legal duty to provide support for a minor child who is neither his natural
nor his adopted child and for whose care and support he has not contracted"
- M.A.F. v. G.L.K., 573 So. 2d 862 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991), the Florida District Court of Appeal "…
ruling that the wife's concealment of the husband's nonpaternity constituted extrinsic fraud. The appellate
- Batrouny v. Batrouny, 13 Va. App. 441, 412 S.E.2d 721 (1991).Virginia Court of Appeals;.
"…misrepresentation of the child's paternity to the divorce court constituted a fraud upon the court…"
- Marriage of M.E., 622 N.E.2d 578 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993), Indiana Court of Appeals "…filed three years
after the divorce, blood tests revealing that the husband was not the father of the youngest child…"
- Spears v. Spears, 784 S.W.2d 605 (Ky. Ct. App. 1990), Kentucky Court of Appeals "blood tests
conclusively proved his nonpaternity, the court concluded, would work an injustice."
- Fairrow v. Fairrow, 559 N.E.2d 597 (Ind. 1990), Indiana Supreme Court "the court gave greater weight to the "substantial public policy, namely justice, which
disfavors a support order against a husband who is not the child's father."
- Marriage of Tzoumas, 187 Ill. App. 3d 723, 543 N.E.2d 1093 (1989), Illinois Appellate Court
"wife had fraudulently concealed these facts from him, if aware of these facts he would not have agreed
to pay child support".
- Evans v. Gunter, 294 S.C. 525, 366 S.E.2d 44 (Ct. App. 1988) (husband's petition to set aside
divorce decree on ground of fraud reinstated; petition alleged cause of action);
- Paternity of Nathan T., 174 Wis. 2d 352, 497 N.W.2d 740 (Ct. App. 1993) (husband's paternity suit
barred by res judicata; husband's remedy was to move to reopen divorce judgment).
- Libro v. Walls, 103 Nev. 540, 746 P.2d 632 (1987) Nevada Supreme Court (husband had sufficiently
alleged extrinsic fraud by the wife in concealing the fact of the husband's nonpaternity from the divorce
The Supreme Court Of The State Of Alaska, State Of Alaska, Department Of Revenue - Child Support )
Supreme Court No. S-6890 ENFORCEMENT DIVISION, ex rel.) P. M., ) Superior Court No. ) 2KB-90-21 CI
Appellant, ) ) O P I N I O N v. ) ) [No. 4461 - January 17, 1997]
Multiple states using Civil rule (60.b) below to"relieve a man from the prospective operation of
a child support order when conclusive proof established that he was not the father of the child"
- G.M.F. v. W.F.F., No. 2950647, 1996 WL 697995, (Ala. Civ. App. Dec. 6, 1996);
- Crowder v. Commonwealth ex rel. Gregory, 745 S.W.2d 149, 151 (Ky. Ct. App. 1988);
- Cuyahoga Child Support Enforcement Agency v. Guthrie, No. 72216, 1997 WL 607530, (Ohio Ct.
App. Oct. 2, 1997).
- Tennessee Dep't of Human Servs. v. Johnson, 1986 WL 1873, Tenn. R. App. P. 60.02(5) to
grant prospective relief from a paternity order.
- Johnson v. Johnson, No. 02A01-9605-JV-00123, 1997 WL 271787,(Tenn. Ct. App. January 7,
1997); Tenn. R. App. P. 60.02(5) to grant prospective relief from a paternity order.